People keep saying this (the republic vs direct democracy part), and it literally doesn't make any sense, to the point that I have difficulty believing people aren't being deliberately obtuse.

Having people directly elect their representatives is still very much a republic and in no definition I've ever seen considered direct democracy. We're talking about people electing their representatives, not their laws.

> It's set up to make it difficult for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority

And that's why black and white people couldn't intermarry until 1967.

> It's set up to make it difficult for the majority to trample on the rights of the minority

Two words: Jim Crow

Yeah. The idea that our system somehow successfully prevents a majority from outright extreme oppression of a minority is laughable given our history. This is just a talking point made with nearly zero intellectual honesty to continue to support a system that benefits one political faction.

When they say "trample on the rights of the minority" they mean "enact legislation unpopular among conservatives."

In context, he meant the rights of the minority that was 18th Century slave owners.

Saying slave owners rights were being protected is not exactly a rousing endorsement about the constitution protecting the rights of the minority.